MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An Alabama lawmaker has prefiled a bill that would ban state and local government entities from using the term “West Bank” in official documents, the latest in a series of culture war fights that critics say signal politicians believe open bigotry is a winning strategy.
House Bill 81, sponsored by Rep. Mark Gidley, R-Hokes Bluff, would prohibit any Alabama government entity from referring to the occupied Palestinian territory along the Jordan River as the “West Bank” and instead require the biblically inflected terms “Judea” and “Samaria.” The bill describes “West Bank” as “a deliberate attempt to erase the Jewish identity of Judea and Samaria” and asserts that “Judea” and “Samaria” are the “historically, biblically, and legally accurate” names for the region.
The proposal would apply to state agencies as well as county and municipal governments and cover a wide range of official documents, including guidance, briefing materials, press releases and other work products. The measure does not include penalties for violations, but allows the head of an agency to waive the requirement if they file a written explanation with the Legislature or the Legislative Council.
Gidley has framed the bill as an affirmation of Alabama’s long-standing political support for Israel, saying the change is needed to ensure the “narrative accurately reflects the land that Israel oversees.” He has also noted that similar efforts have emerged in other conservative-led states and in Congress, as Republicans seek to align state and federal language more closely with the Israeli right.
The bill drops into a highly charged global context. Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack has prompted accusations of genocide from human rights groups, U.N. experts and foreign governments, even as Israel and its supporters insist the offensive is a legitimate war against terrorism. Against that backdrop, critics say efforts to rebrand the West Bank inside Alabama statutes read less like neutral semantics and more like an attempt to erase the presence and history of Palestinians living under military occupation.
Rep. Phillip Ensler, D-Montgomery, the Legislature’s only Jewish member, has questioned the bill’s priorities, saying he is proud of his heritage but does not think banning the term “West Bank” is a constructive way to pursue peace. Ensler has argued that most Alabamians are more concerned with everyday issues than with how faraway disputed territory is labeled in state paperwork, given the Legislature’s limited time in session.
HB 81 also fits a broader pattern in Alabama politics, where Republican leaders have increasingly advanced legislation that targets or marginalizes vulnerable groups, even as public opinion has shifted toward greater acceptance. In recent years, lawmakers have passed measures curtailing LGBTQ rights, restricting diversity, equity and inclusion programs and limiting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth, policies civil rights advocates and national organizations describe as grounded in religious extremism rather than empirical evidence.
Alabama is widely seen as one of the most socially conservative states in the country, but polling shows large majorities of residents support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people and oppose allowing businesses to refuse service on religious grounds. That gap between public sentiment and legislative action has led critics to warn that Republican politicians are using state power to wage symbolic battles that play well with primary voters while reinforcing the state’s reputation for intolerance.
Civil rights historians point out that Alabama’s political image was forged in earlier decades by leaders who openly defied federal civil rights law and cast white Christian grievance as a governing platform, a legacy many residents still work to overcome. For those critics, a bill that imports sectarian terminology into state code to describe a contested foreign territory is another sign that some officeholders remain more interested in signaling allegiance to exclusionary worldviews than in representing the full diversity of Alabamians.
The Legislature’s 2026 regular session begins Jan. 13, and HB 81 is expected to be referred to a House committee for consideration in the coming weeks. Whether the proposal advances or stalls, the debate over a single geographic term is likely to double as a referendum on how far Alabama’s leaders are willing to go in embracing identity-based politics at home and abroad.